|
Training your superior
|
HR Executive Moderator
|
Oct 28, 2007 01:07 PDT
|
Sometimes appointments are made not just for the purpose of filling a
vacancy. In some instances although an individual may have extensive
experience, his qualification does not authorise him to place his
signature onto a legal document. As an example in the field of
engineering certain documents can only be signed off by a certified and
qualified engineer.
In instances where you have an individual that has gained extensive
knowledge through years of experience and meets all of the job
requirements with the exception of qualification, there are options that
can be chosen to appease all parties.
1. Create an internal department that is responsible for as we would
call it spade work or backroom work and make the head of this department
the individual with all of the experience. This will bring personal
satisfaction to the individual and at the same time achieve continuity
in the work flow. Remuneration can equal or better the qualified but
inexperienced individual.
2. Have a system of authorisation that must pass through the hands of
the less experienced. This will help to get the less experienced up to
speed in a functional environment.
I do not believe that an obligation exists with the more experienced
individual to train or teach the qualified individual. Training is meant
to be provided by the company or a superior not a subordinate.
Insistence to train might lead to animosity and further to legal
ramifications for the company in the form of victimisation, unfair
business practice,etc.
Good Luck.
With best regards,
Marshall Gounden
-----Original Message-----
Subject: [HR Executive] Training your superior
==============================
HR Executive Discussion Forum
==============================
Sometimes it comes down to poor definition of the job and a poor advert.
If qualifications are not as important as experience, don't make the
former a requirement. However, if qualifications are important then you
can't take on someone without them (in spite of extensive experience).
We don't have enough info here but often the appointed person is the
right candidate for the job even though there are aspects for which he
will require training/mentoring etc. For this you may use external or
internal help but these deficiencies give rise to the perception
(especially among those not chosen) that he was not in fact the best
candidate.
There is no question that the "other guy" is required to obey a
reasonable/lawful order and can be severely disciplined for not doing
so.
But when you want someone to train another you are looking for
enthusiasm rather than mere obedience. The one is useless without the
other. What you need to do (if it's not too late) is sell the concept.
If you had a good and defensible reason for making your decision,
explain it and try to get the "other guy" on board. If applicable
discuss with him what he would need to do in order to be your first
choice next time and what you are willing and able to do to help him.
Good luck,
Ian
-----Original Message-----
Subject: [HR Executive] Training your superior
==============================
HR Executive Discussion Forum
==============================
Hi:
The fact that this other guy has 'extensive experience in the field', as
you say, qualifies him for the job and therefore meets, or even exceeds
the minimum requirements of the job.
I find it a contradiction in terms for you to say he has extensive
experience, and appoint someone without experience, and expect him to
train him.
There doesn't seem to be a good reason why an inexperienced person was
appointed over a very experieced one.
Molefe
----- Original Message -----
| | ==============================
HR Executive Discussion Forum
==============================
Hi!
I need advice in this regard, a senior position was advertised
internally and interviews were conducted where one guy was identified
and appointed out of five interviewed. The person appointed needs
training though qualified enough and unfortunately one of the five
guys interviewed has to assist the appointed guy because he has
extensive experience in the field though not qualified. He refuses on
the basis that he was not appointed but he has to assist the
appointee, what right does this guy has and what powers do we have
|
over
|
|
 |
|
